2. Agenda review:

Chair presented the agenda. AOB is moved to agenda review.
Chair has two AOB:
1) dates for the f2f meetings in Nov 2001 and Feb 2002 are still being
specified (November date is on the XML Co-Ordination Group's agenda for
next week, and February date is still TBD by W3C)
2) Chair remind members to respond to his "implementation survey" email,
only two responses so far. Paul Cotton asked whether the email was to
the WG members. PaulC and DavidF agreed there could be much wider audience
for this survey.

4. Action items:

see IRC record

5. Base64 encoding feedabck request from XML Schema

DavidF: described the issue and said that the Schema WG wants our feedback
on 2 issues. Do we have strong opinions?
Henrik: SOAP violates Schema
Gudge: no it doesn't, the Schema doesn't require EOLs, it will be in errata
David: do we have somebody to draft our response to the Schema WG?
Not hearing anybody the chair proposes to send the message to the Schema WG
that we don't have an opinion on the canonical form of Base64 type
and on the lexical checking by a Schema processor.
Gudge and David discussed equal-signs.
Gudge will take an action to check where equal-signs are allowed and then
he will draft the message.

6. list of issues to close

We have a list of issues that possibly can be closed.
Editors agreed that the editorial group can be closed.
WG unanimous consent that we can close the editorial issues.
Marc Hadley: #100 may not be resolved yet
Glen: #99 was closed by my proposal for enhancing faults and #100 should be
closed by the new processing model
After more discussion it was agreed, that there is a new issue: how should
the ultimate recipient respond to a message with mU header targeted
to an other actor.
Chair: can we resolve it now?
Glen: I think there are strong issues for either solution.
Eric Jenkins: I thought it was resolved on the f2f.
David: it's now open... somebody should look at the spec and see if it's
resolved.
Glen took the action item to do it this afternoon.
David: any other questionable issues in group A?
Gudge: have we resolved 102?
David: this was Noah's issue, he said it was resolved.
Gudge was happy.
David proposed listing all the issues from group A except for issue #100 as
closed.
Glen asked about the resolution of 102.
Jacek replied that he thought it was that the core spec won't specify
delivering faults, that the binding will.
We need somebody to volunteer to write down the resolutions to these
issues. There are already resolutions to the issues 35-72 of the Group A
issues.
Glen took 99 and 100.
Jacek took 102.
Doug took 106.
Eric Jenkins took 107.
Group B:
#24: Gudge: it was always possible, I'll write the resolution.
David: and we will close #24.
Gudge will also send the resolution to the originator of the issue.
#26: SOAP1.1 does it. Mark as closed.
#28: Gudge: I think there is a bigger issue: this requirement (401) implies
you can have a schema of the message. There are aspects of section
5 encoding that cannot be described with an XML Schema.
Paul: I thought that it was: everything that's in schema should be covered
by section 5.
David: If we closed 28, will 29 cover the concerns?
Gudge and Paul: yes
David: so let's close 28, because 29 exists.
#31: David: requirement 404, encoding of arrays
Gudge: section 5 covers this
David: we'll close this issue
#101: Jacek: I think we haven't resolved it yet.
David: I don't hear we have closed it, we can't close it.
Agreed.

7. Status report from the transport binding TF.

Chair: the TF decided on their call that one way to go fwd was to come up
with a number of concrete proposals, we now have 4 of them, but we
haven't had an opportunity to look over them yet.
Chair: do we want brief overviews?
Seveeral in agreement
Highland: SMTP
..the scribe had trouble understanding due to bad line conditions..
Chris: I'll send it to dist-app, too
Chris: I tried to put together something more exhaustive, specifically
about extensions in terms of encapsulation. I wasn't clear about what to
do with SOAPAction.
Henrik: by encapsulation you mean MIME etc?
Chris: yes, and I defined a default encapsulation of NONE.
Chris: I also tried to more specifically map HTTP status codes to various
situations in SOAP processing.
Mark: do we want bindings to encompass all uses of a protocol or just one
well-specified use?
David: I'd like to see the TF messages to be marked somehow.
David: The minutes of the TF are available on some new web pages.
Oisin: TCP binding - again, the scribe had problems understanding, but the
proposal's available
David: do people outside the TF have suggestions for the TF?
None offered.
David: we'll have another telcon in the TF.

9. the schedule:

F2F Sep 10, we'll publish after the f2f as we did after the Dinard F2F.
Before the F2F we want to finish the Protocol Binding, we need
to have a single proposal and then there will be feedback and discussion.
Also, we want to start an RPC TF, interested people send me an
email, there'll be a telcon this week, probably on Friday. We need the
first proposal from this TF by the first week of Aug.
We need to get closure on the infoset modifications - Gudge has produced
the first version which we will discuss on next week's telcon.
An Infoset modified spec may be the basis for an nterim Working Draft
sometime in August.
Chair's proposing to postpone the encoding discussion until after the F2F.
We will also be resolving other issues during the telcons leading up to the
f2f.
Any questions?
Glen: should we send the resolutions to the WG or to dist-app?
David: dist-app. Just make sure to mark the subject line.
EOC